Self-serving statements do not constitute substantial evidence

In this trademark/cyberquatting case, the CAFC re-iterated that "self-serving statements do not constitute
substantial evidence." (from the earlier case, Home Meridian Int’l, Inc.
v. United States, 772 F.3d 1289, 1295 (Fed. Cir. 2014))

Also of note was the appellant's argument: the housing and foreclosure crisis that began in 2008 has made it “especially likely” that the
term is no longer distinctive in light of this change, making
the issues of this case different than those decided in
the civil action.


Yes, Job's Daughters is cited:

To the extent that Staub’s petition
concerned the same issue of whether Mr. Carnivale’s
mark was distinctive and not generic in 2004, the Board
correctly found that Staub was precluded from relitigating
that issue. See, e.g., Int’l Order of Job’s Daughters
v. Lindeburg & Co., 727 F.2d 1087, 1091 (Fed. Cir.
1984).

case: Staub Design v. Carnivale